House Votes To Repeal DADT

Exactly. The only separation should be enlisted or officer. All persons should be treated the same regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or marital status.

In my perfect world the only distinctions are between cool....and uncool.

Post 195 puts the lie to this.

I'm all for that.

The shower scene in Starship Troopers, where men and women were in there together not having sex?

Make it like that in today's military.

Time to move on from all that puritanical bullshit.

I don't know, it depends on where you are at. When its cold and gets dark at 5pm when you get off work and there ain't much to do, most people go inside. See, that is the opposite of my experience. If a 1st sergeant got wind that two people didn't like each other, he would intentionally put them together. You bitch about your room mate you are just going to get a worse one. I get the feeling that you didn't spend much time living in the dorms oldfella. I spent about 5 years living in those dorms and I did a lot of things to get out of the dorms, but sooner or later it comes down to putting up with someone elses shit. I was married and living with my wife off base for four months until I got my orders to a base in florida and back in the fucking dorms. I was miserable. I was 24 and in the best shape of my life and threatened to kill my 18 year old room mate. I also went toe to toe with the guy that ran the dorms. I had a line number for another stripe and he was a buck sergeant and was tired of his shit too. Probably the number one reason I got out of the Air Force. I loved the job, but just got tired of the games 24/7.
An E-1 living off base doesn't have to put up with near the shit of an E-5 living in the dorms.

Really? Post 195 explores whether straight sailors are going to have to stop kissing their girlfriends on the dock because the military might want to avoid the spectacle of gay PDA. When PC becomes the law of the land, that is the sort of nonsense that results.

I don't actually have a problem with gays in the military if you can solve the housing problem. The Pentagon report noted that a lot of straight sailors said they'd be perfectly happy with it if they could just have separate quarters, but it also recommended against that, apparently because they don't know how to deal with PC allegations of "separate but equal" treatment. (It's comforting to see that the military makes decisions based on political correctness, isn't it?)

For the record, I freely admit that the thought of guys having sex with each other disgusts me. But I realize this preference is not a choice, and knowing my own attraction toward women I could never fault guys who feel that way from acting on it.

But also knowing my own attraction toward women, I know that if you had me staying in a berthing area with a woman, and she and I were attracted to each other, that we might be working very hard to find a way to make a connection with each other. Am I rationally supposed to think gay guys aren't going to be trying to hook up with each other the same way since, unlike my fantasy, they actually will be staying in the same berthing?

Would it be more politically correct to look at this in the light that the military doesn't reject gays so much as it exploits straights who can be conveniently separated into groups that aren't attracted to each other?

I have much, much less of a problem with gays in the military than I do with gays living in open berthing with straights.

Giving everyone in the military their own place would solve the problem and a lot more. Make the dorm rooms half as big but with individual rooms would be awesome. That way you can bring in who you like without bothering a room mate.

Gay guys and lesbians can't get pregnant by having sex.

I spent my entire four AF years in the dorms. You must have had some real prick First Sergeants to deliberately instigate trouble. Sad....

But you are right about an E-2 living off post having it easier than an E-5 living in the dorms/barracks - that will never change. Their house (gubmint) their rules - not much you can do there.

I also think it would be better to have a tiny room by myself rather than share a big room. I'm just not the social type.

But the advances in Army barracks living are amazing. The new trend is room entrances from the outside....so it's basically like a motel room.
Much more privacy than a common interior hallway with everyone seeing who is coming + going with who. Does this facilitate sex in the barracks?
Thankfully, yes. But in The Army (once you are finished with training and are considered a functional soldier) they realize young people like to have sex. So 99 percent of the commanders focus on real issues, like mission accomplishment + safety of their soldiers.

Our First Sergeants in Korea (I had to stay in the barracks as an E5/E6) knew the deal. They would drop hints before a "morale, health + welfare" inspection so all the soldiers (male + female) could get their girlfriends/boyfriends out of their rooms in time. He didn't need all that hassle over people being human off-duty.

Gonna try this. ONE. LAST. TIME.

There's about six different ways i can't join the service, and nothing about this decision is likely to help trans people out so not so much as you might think.

But yeah, i do have a perspective on being someone that "normal" people sometimes think they are too good to associate with so there's that.

But it has already been pointed out to you that there ARE circumstances when men and women bunk together while in the service....and that there ARE options about who you bunk with...and that people in civilian life face the same situation...and that gays shit/shower/shave with straights routinely (in a far more vulnerable setting than smi-dressed and in bed) and you nor anyone else complains about that...and that gays are ALREADY bearthing with straight people!!!

yet none of that logic and none of those facts have made the tinyest dent in your thick skull.

and yet THEY ARE ALREADY THERE!!! Honestly dude, what's more to be worried about anyway - the gay you know about and can keep an eye on, or the secret gay who might ass-rape you when you are not looking?

and yet THEY ARE ALREADY THERE!!!

Except you ARE NOT DEFENDING A POLICY WHICH PREVENTS THAT! AGAIN: THEY ARE ALREADY THERE!

This policy accomplishes ONE THING ONLY - a service member otherwise in good standing cannot lose their career because some busybody figures out they are homosexual.

This whole bullshit about Gays "openly" flaunting their orientation DOES NOT HAPPEN. (other than in the same sort of rare instance that any soldier might behave in a bullshit manner)

Absent that flaunting, this decision changes NOTHING in the day to day life of the average soldier. What it changes is whether or not the gay soldier has to live in fear of being found out.

and THAT is why it's bigotry on your part. You can rationalize it all you want to let yourself sleep better at night. "I'm not a bigot" you tell yourself, "I'm really really not a bigot! i have really good reasons!"

You HAVE to be telling yourself because the rest of us don't believe the denials for a minute. Everyone but EP can see that you are just coming up with a cover story to try to disguise it.

You want us to believe that all the 95% of straight soldiers wil not live in some state of fear of surprise buttseks because now they know (according to your logic) that there's a gay in every other bunk.

But the fact is that for 17 years (and much more before that) it was the gays who had to live in abject fear - not fear of a surprise ass-rape, but fear of having their entire livelihood ripped out from under them because some mosey asshole like you put two and two together.

Frankly, even if everything you said was true - you haven't proven that the discomfort of the majority justifies imposing even more extreme discomfort on the minority. No one has a right to not have their calm disturbed.

furthermore, you haven't answered the obvious logic that if you get paid to blow shit up and kill people, you are probably man enough to have a queer in the same dorm with you.

THEY ARE ALREADY THERE!

THEY ARE ALREADY THERE!

THEY ARE ALREADY THERE!

THEY ARE ALREADY THERE!

Ok, fine. there is no reason to house men and women separately, with this proviso - if a woman come up pregnant by a man in the same berthing, both face potential dishonorable discharge or whatever is the appropriate discipline for violating rules against intercourse within the unit.

DNA testing mandatory.

With that stipulation, I'm fine with berthing them together.

Not one person in this thread has stated, implied, hinted, or suggested that anyone and everyone has a "right to serve."

Feel free to gather up your straw-men and take them out with you when you leave. We don't need to be cleaning up the bullshit you left scattered here.

That's a rationalization. Straight couples don't have to get pregnant having from having sex either. There's much more to the separation than that and you know it.

Still another layer to this onion......should the military reinstate gay soldiers assuming they still meet the age/fitness standards?
Should they pay them backpay?

Because the standards changed and now gayness is not a showstopper, it was a showstopper at the time the gays were booted out.

In other words, let's say the military kicks out a soldier for being 24 percent bodyfat, and the limit is 22. A year later the standards change to 28 percent. If he's willing, can he be reinstated if he meets these new standards?

Should the gays who got kicked out get their jobs back? Should anyone kicked out for X reason be allowed back in once they are booted if X is now allowed? This could open a whole Pandora's box.

I really think the only fair way to handle this is to allow any gay currently serving to come out, and any future gay soldiers to come in as an open gay. Too bad for those who got booted, but as I said, we must be fair to anyone kicked out and then have a law/standard change.

No one's getting back pay from this legislation.

Don't forget to take the EPPF* into account when you're reading that stuff.

























*Enlisted Person Persecution Factor

Fundamental flaw in your logic:

That has nothing to do with DADT.

The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy already allows homosexuals to serve in the US military. They are already in that shared accommodation and the removal of DADT will do nothing to change that fact.

Here is a serious question for you:

Should prisons be unisex? Meaning male and female prisoners accommodated in the same wings?

If not, should there be separate prisons for homosexuals?

I understand there is a big difference between being in the military and being incarcerated, however many of the same principles you are raging about here apply to those two questions.

edit: Hell, let's expand the boundaries.

Should there be multiple types of public restrooms, with heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, homosexual men, transsexual men, transsexual men, hermaphroditic people and any other variation all having their own seperate restrooms?

What about the police force? They have shared changing areas, should they be separated along similar lines or bar homosexual members?

Actually, if you're disallowed reenlistment based on a standard and it changes, you can get back in under the new standard. Shouldn't be a problem to allow those discharged for being gay to reup under the new standard.

Yes. People like you shouldn't be able to see my winky.

It is just good Chrstian truth: TRUTH

No heterosexual vaginal sex between a fertile man and woman is completely safe - medical tech just isn't that good yet. That's the only reason I care about it. I have no problem putting sterile men or gay men with women and vice versa.

It doesn't matter whether you have a problem with it. What matters is whether men and women are housed separately just to prevent pregnancy. I suspect women might feel otherwise.

Except for the 13000+ who've been thrown out under the policy.

I like my homosexual roommates to be discouraged from acting on their impulses in the strongest language possible. Considering that gays see a barracks full of men the same way I see a barracks full of women, I can appreciate how really strong discouragement would be appropriate.

You're asking the wrong person. Ask someone who supports the repeal.

I think you've just described San Francisco.

Good question. Suppose there's an openly gay cop, and one or more straight cops who object to homosexuality. Should they be required to shower and dress with him, or do you think they should be free to choose the time and place that they dress/undress so that it's most comfortable for them? Because aboard ship sailors won't have that freedom.

Probably not just to prevent pregnancy, since you can still have sex in laundry rooms, dumpsters (yes, it happens) vehicles, helicopters, etc.

Funny shower situation. One of my soldiers who went to AIT (Army job training) with a flamingly gay guy (who was also one of my soldiers) said you never saw a bunch of soldiers take a shower, dry off + get dressed so fast when the gay would get into the "open shower" area. :santa_grin:
But he never made a pass at any of his buds, so there was no real problem. Nobody harrased him - matter of fact his roommates thought highly of him because he volunteered to iron their clothes and otherwise keep the four man room clean.

And the dude could cook his ass off. If he had access to a well stocked kitchen (versus limited barracks facilities) he could really shine.

The gayest sterotypical thing IMO he ever did was wear a battery powered rainbow hat that lit up when he pressed a button, Daisy Dukes and a half-shirt to a civilian clothes "fun run" when he was stationed at Fort Drum. :santa_shocked: HATED IT!!!

And, just how do you see a barracks full of women?

Bullshit. All that's necessary for you to understand is that everything you liberals consider "predatory" about men -- right or wrong -- applies to gay men as well.

Even if only some men would be cause for concern for the women, and if only some gay men would be cause for concern for the men. What's good for the goose, quite literally, is good for the gander as well.

Yes, I am liberal and I don't consider every man predatory. The predatory men eventually reveal themselves all on their own - especially when they make the type of statements you've been making.

I have a picture of jenee being a Colonel's cabin girl.

They can get the fuck over it. Just like you can in re: gays.

Clearly you've never been to San Francisco, or you've only been to some backwater out by Lake Merced or something. I've never seen anywhere in the city, even in the Castro (the edge of which I live a few blocks from) that had anything other than the standard men's and women's room or unisex one-person bathrooms. And the trend in these sorts of places is in exactly the opposite direction; there's a place in Santa Cruz where there are two unisex bathrooms with multiple stalls (honestly I'm surprised I haven't run into that here, but whatever). Shockingly, the world doesn't come to an end.

I use my eyes. :santa_rolleyes:

Stevie Wonder shuffles along groping everything in his reach as best he can. :santa_ok: